On Friday 26 April 2002 01:18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't > > the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or > > has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it. > > However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes > the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source, > because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's > what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to > refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all.
Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL. It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or pay for violating the license (and that would take a lawsuit brought by the copyright holders). He still has some rights to his derivative work, they aren't completely held by the original authors, so it would be a mistake to treat the derivative work as GPL'ed and copy it before the court forced license compliance (assuming it chose to). Lynn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]